Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.



Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this


  1. 1. SCIENCE, MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY pyrig No Co ht t fo rP by N ub Q ui lica tio te n ot n ss e n c e fo r Summary In restorative dentistry part of the crown and bridgework is pro- duced from all-ceramic. The high- strength framework structures required are mainly made of oxide ceramics. Zirconia ceramic is currently gaining in popularity because of its good biocompati- bility and fatigue strength. The first provider of such a zirconia was Metoxit. The company sup- plies either finished parts, such as posts, abutments and implants, or blanks which are further ma- chined to produce posts, crown and bridge frameworks, for example by CAD/CAM technolo- gy. Looking at their past activities means also looking at the history of high-tech bioceramics in the various fields of medicine. The development and present appli- cation of this high-strength zirco- nia ceramic is outlined. Key words abutments; all-ceramic; alumina; implants; industrial ceramic; High-tech Bioceramics – oxide ceramics; prosthodontics; zirconia History and Present State Siegbert Witkowski In restorative dentistry, metal-ceramic has been a standard for fixed restorations since the Introduction 1960s. Since the mid-1990s the metal-to-ceramic alloys used for this type of restoration have increasingly been replaced by high-strength ceramics. Prominent among these is an yttrium-stabilised zirconia ceramic (zirconia Y-TZP [tetragonal zirconia polycrystals])1,2. The starting material for this high-strength industrial ceramic is produced chemically from mineral raw materials (zirconium sand), partly stabilised with yttrium oxide and processed by the ceramic method into products and semi-finished parts. For dental appli- cations, e.g. for dental laboratory products, blanks for crown and bridge frameworks are shaped with burs or diamond instruments3. Since the end of the 1990s the material also known as ‘high-tech ceramic’ has been increasingly used in dentistry instead of cast alloys. Oxide ceramics have been in clinical use in medicine, starting with aluminium oxide, since around 1970, and were initially used predominantly in orthopaedics as a component of replacement hip joints. Ceramic hip joints, also made from the newly developed high-performance material zirconia-TZP since the mid-1980s, are now wide- spread and safe to use because of their good biocompatibility, high fatigue strength and, 8 QJDT 6, 1, 8–18 (2008)
  2. 2. SCIENCE, MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY pyrig No Co ht t fo rP by N ub Q ui lica tio te ot n n ss e n c e fo r Table 1 Manufacturing process above all, outstanding wear properties. After appropriate testing and compliance with of hot isostatic post-compaction the prevailing standards, the ‘bioceramic’ materials alumina (aluminium oxide) and zir- ZrO2-TZP23 conia (zirconium oxide) are licensed for medical devices and are chosen depending on Assemble raw materials the indication range. The Swiss company Metoxit AG was the first company that applied its knowledge of Pressing oxide ceramics to dentistry and is a trail-blazer and one of the market leaders in the man- Machine as pre-sintered body ufacture and processing of these high-performance ceramics. Looking at their past activ- ities means also looking at the history of high-tech bioceramics in the various fields of Sinter medicine. As a result of innovations in the processing technology applied to these ceram- Hot isostatic compaction ics, this company has succeeded in improving the quality and stability by using purer and purer raw materials, optimised manufacturing processes and the narrowest production Oxidise tolerances in order to increase user safety and biological acceptance. Since 1986, apply- Machining ing the method known as ‘hot isostatic post-compaction’ (HIP) to bioceramics for med- ical use has made it possible to condense the ceramic material after the sintering process Final inspection (Table 1). As a result, the strength and reliability of these materials is greatly increased4. This marks a milestone in the manufacture and development of oxide ceramics in medical technology. Metoxit AG Metoxit AG is based in Thayngen, close to the German border in the Swiss canton of Schaffhausen. The company sees itself as a supplier of products made from specialist ceramics for various sectors of industry. Metoxit emerged in 1978 as a subsidiary of the company (then) Swiss Aluminium AG (Alusuisse) and the local ceramics firm Tonwerke Thayngen AG. The original tasks were the development and manufacture of materials for aluminium production. The name Metoxit was trademarked and registered in 1973, 5 years before the foundation of Metoxit AG. The AGZ group (AG Ziegelwerke Horw- Gettnau-Muri, Horw, Switzerland) took over Tonwerke Thayngen AG in 1985 and the Alusuisse shares in Metoxit AG in 1986. The Managing Director of Metoxit AG was Dr Wolfhart Rieger from the formation of the company until 2004, when he was succeeded by his long-standing colleague Dr Wolfram Weber. As a manufacturer and supplier of oxide ceramics, Metoxit AG initially concentrated on alumina, followed by zirconia. By introducing and thoroughly testing high-tech ceramic materials and by using innovative production methods, the company has attained a unique position in the field of medical technology. Today, Metoxit AG sells more than half of its produts in the orthopaedic and dental sectors. Together with its sister company Saphirwerk Industrieprodukte AG (SWIP) in Brugg, Switzerland, it supplies leading orthopaedic firms with ceramic hip joints and manufactures a wide range of superior Fig 1 Da Vinci chronograph from IWC Schaffhausen. A spe- wearing parts for industry, e.g. pistons and plungers for high-pressure pumps. As part- cial series with casings made of ners of the world-renowned Schaffhausen clock company IWC, Metoxit AG developed zirconia ceramic was issued, and produced the world’s first watch cases in zirconia ceramic in 1986 (Fig 1). Nowadays then a world-first. Metoxit AG, together with SWIP, employs 150 people at two locations and is continuing to expand with new innovations ( Oxide Ceramic in Since 1980, the use of oxide ceramics in orthopaedics has been pursued intensively by Orthopaedics Metoxit AG. The possibility of their clinical application was tested by various companies from the 1960s onwards and advanced by fundamental research until about 1970. Further QJDT 6, 1, 8–18 (2008) 9
  3. 3. SCIENCE, MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY pyrig No Co ht t fo rP by N ub Q ui lica tio te ot n n ss e n c e fo r development of alumina led to its clinical use in orthopaedics around 1970, as ball-heads and later inserts for acetabular cups for hip joints. Up to the end of the 1990s the oxide ceramics had been continually improved, especially in terms of mechanical properties, by the use of refined raw materials combined with innovative production methods. Another key step proved to be the introduction of the above-mentioned HIP process (1986) by Metoxit AG. As a result, the flexural strength and long-term life expectancy of alumina and, since 1986, zirconia were considerably improved. Metoxit gained Food and Drug Administration (FDA, USA) approval with the Master File for alumina as early as 1989 and with the Master File for zirconia in 1991. In 1993 authorisation from the French and EU health authorities was obtained, both after extensive studies and animal experi- Fig 2 Ball-heads and acetabular cup inserts for ments lasting two years. The Master Files were an international leap for- artificial hip joints made of oxide ceramics. ward for Metoxit, especially with the material zirconia-TZP, and they are regarded as the standard by other manufacturers in this field5. At the same time, as mate- rials were being developed, the machining methods and manufacturing precision were continuously being improved. For instance, the surface of alumina and zirconia, e.g. for orthopaedic ball-heads, can be polished to a roughness depth of 0.002 μm (value Ra). To achieve this, the know-how of SWIP was essential. The accuracy of sphericity of ball- heads, which is obtained in the proprietary process of SWIP, is 0.1 μm. Finished parts for dental technology or prosthodontics/implantology can also be manufactured by Metoxit AG with extremely high accuracy (Fig 2)5. This information about the quality of specific products is presented in the context where individual clinical long-term problems are being discussed in the field of ball-heads of hip joints. Presently, the wear characteristics of zirconia (Y-TZP) articulating against itself are being investigated and discussed. The wear rate and clinical experience emphasises that medical-grade zirconia, in some prod- ucts, has been critical to low-temperature degradation for the use in hip prostheses. A close look has to be given to the different products that are available. The quality can vary a significantly among products of different manufacturers6. Zirconia ceramic has been used for a few years in orthodontics7 for brackets and in Introduction of Zirconia prosthodontics for root posts8 and abutments9. Metoxit AG started to move into the field into the Dental Sector of dental materials with root posts made of zirconia, which were produced from 1991 onwards. The key to their success was the hardening and tempering of the material by the HIP process, so that Metoxit soon held something of a monopoly in the area of root posts. The advantage of the ‘Metoxit process’ is that root posts can be manufactured with very small diameters (as low as 1.4 mm), very narrow tolerances and high resistance to frac- ture. To date this quality has not been matched either by injection moulding methods or by extrusion (Figs 3 to 5). Abutments made from zirconia, which can be precisely adapted to or fitted into implants, has emerged as another area of production. From 1995, abutments (Zirabut) made of zirconia were developed by the Liechtenstein dental technician, Arnold Wohlwend, and produced by Metoxit, initially for experimental work on titanium implants (Figs 6 to 10)9–11. Later, abutments were manufactured which were mounted onto a tita- 10 QJDT 6, 1, 8–18 (2008)
  4. 4. SCIENCE, MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY pyrig No Co ht t fo rP by N ub Q ui lica tio te otn n ss e n c e fo r Fig 3 Example of a product: root post made of zirconia ceramic. Fig 4 Root posts made of zirconia ceramic in the root canals for the build-ups. Clinic: Dr Guido Heydecke, Freiburg. Fig 5 The root posts can be fitted with ceramic build-ups by using Fig 6 First prototypes of abutments made of zirconia ceramic the press technique. created by Wohlwend in 1995. Fig 7 First case study involving the clinical use of abutments made Fig 8 The zirconia abutments in the mouth fixed on the implants. of zirconia ceramic from 1995, by Wohlwend. Clinic: Dr Stefan Studer at the Dental Institute in Zürich. QJDT 6, 1, 8–18 (2008) 11
  5. 5. SCIENCE, MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY pyrig No Co ht t fo rP by N ub Q ui lica tio te n ot n ss e n c e fo r Fig 9 The abutments and prepared teeth were fitted with all- Fig 10 Patient with occlusal view. ceramic crowns. Tooth 22 is a natural tooth. 1989 Publication by Rieger24 on the performance of modern bioceramics 1990 Root posts made of HIP zirconia after Sandhaus 1993 Precident DCS users discover HIP zirconia for dental CAD/CAM machining 1993 Introduction of HIP zirconia at DCS Dental AG 1994 Wohlwend obtains zirconia as a pre-sintered body for CAD/CAM machining 1995 Market leader in the field of root posts made of HIP zirconia 1998 Abutments start to be made of HIP zirconia by Wohlwend10 2000 Market leader with HIP zirconia for CAD/CAM machining 2002 First surgical instruments for oral implantology made of HIP zirconia 2003 First oral implants made of HIP zirconia available on the market 2007 Presentation of the Ziraldent®-Implant with the surface ZircaPore® 2007 Presentation of coloured zirconia CAD/CAM-blanks (HIP and pre- sintered) Fig 11 Oral implant made of zirconia ceramic. The Ziraldent®- Table 2 Milestones of Metoxit AG in the introduction of zirconia Implant and ZircaPore®-Surface. into dentistry. nium base. This meant that the fixing screws did not sit in the zirconia but in a tried and tested titanium system. Today Metoxit AG supplies numerous customers with abutments made from zirconia-TZP-HIP in various configurations, in some cases combined with tita- nium parts. Clinical studies have reported positive results in this area9,12. Metoxit AG have also been producing surgical instruments for oral implants for the past three years made from Ziraldent, a high-strength composite ceramic. These instruments are particularly char- acterised by their long service life and smooth running, and offer the advantage of metal- free use. At the same time, the first oral implants made from zirconia ceramic have also been manufactured; these are a focus of current development work (Fig 11 and Table 2)13. The introduction of zirconia ceramic into dental laboratory work took place in the early Introduction of Zirconia 1990s when titanium was increasingly being processed for crown and bridge frameworks into Dental Laboratory by means of CAD/CAM technology. This material never achieved any great popularity, Technology which was due to the fact that aesthetics were still poor at the time and the bond strength 12 QJDT 6, 1, 8–18 (2008)
  6. 6. SCIENCE, MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY pyrig No Co ht t fo rP by N ub Q ui lica tio te ot n n ss e n c e fo r Fig 12 Virtual CAD image of a bridge framework showing the planned milling out of a mater- ial blank. Fig 13 Bridge framework after milling out of a blank made of HIP zirconia ceramic. Fig 14 Basal view of the ceram- ic veneered posterior bridge. Fig 15 All-ceramic posterior bridge inserted into the mouth. of ceramic to framework was debatable. The desire to use the CAD/CAM systems that had been developed for materials other than titanium led innovative users to the products from Metoxit AG. In 1993, when zirconia was already known in dentistry for post-and- cores, DCS Dental AG (1995–2006 DCS AG, Allschwill, Switzerland; 2006 Bien Air, Biel Switzerland; 2007 withdrawn from the market), Metoxit and the DCS Precident system user Josef Hintersehr were the first to adapt their system to zirconia ceramic14,15. To gain the maximum benefit from the positive material properties of zirconia ceramic for crown and bridge frameworks, the dental technology parts were ground out of zirconia-TZP-HIP blocks using sintered diamond instruments (Figs 12 to 15)16. As a basic principle, this application has remained the same to the present day. Other companies such as HintELs (Griesheim), newly founded at the time, also went down this route of CAD/CAM ‘zirco- nia hard machining’3. The fact that the veneer ceramics for titanium were also suitable for zirconia frame- works, in terms their coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE), was being exploited by the QJDT 6, 1, 8–18 (2008) 13
  7. 7. SCIENCE, MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY pyrig No Co ht t fo rP by N ub Q ui lica tio te ot n n ss e n c e fo r Table 3 Current veneer ceram- Initial FS–Zr, GC ics for frameworks made of zir- Cercon KISS, Degudent conia ceramic (some of the Lava Ceram, 3M Espe product names are registered Creation Zr, Girrbach trademarks of the manufactur- Cerabien ZR, Noritake ers). Eris, Ivoclar NobelRondo, Nobel Biocare e.max Ceram, Ivoclar Zirox, Wieland VM 9, Vita Zahnfabrik Sakura Interaction, Elephant Vintage ZR, Shofu Diverse titanium ceramics mid-1990s. One weakness in this crown and bridge system proved to be the bond between the veneer ceramic and the zirconium framework. This weakness was revealed by analysis of clinical trials and was then resolved by the introduction of special veneer ceramics for zirconia (Table 3). So far there is no common agreement on basic procedures such as the surface treatment of the veneering areas of the framework. Each product of zirconia and veneering ceramic are underlying the individual recommendation of each manufacturer. These recommendations vary significantly among products and are some- times contradictory17. In 1994 Arnold Wohlwend looked for a way to machine zirconia in a state that was not yet fully sintered so that the time required for grinding the HIP-zirconia during CAD/CAM machining could be markedly reduced. This led to the creation of zirconia blanks that could be quickly machined in a chalk-like state using tungsten carbide cutters16. When using this method, it became necessary to machine out the crown and bridge frameworks from the blocks in an enlarged form to compensate for subsequent sintering shrinkage. This enlargement technique was resolved with the aid of the digital components of milling machines. The first system to take up the idea of pre-sintered body machining and make it a technical and commercial reality was Cercon (Degudent, Hanau). The concept was developed in the Department for Crown and Bridge Prosthodontics, under the direction of Prof P Schärer of the Zürich Dental Institute and at the ETH Zürich under the direction of Prof L Gauckler. In the pilot study this concept was presented as DCM (direct ceramic machining) and was documented as such in the early clinical trials18. The patients of this study were recalled, and 5 years of clinical follow-up was presented19. Since 1998, numerous companies have brought out other CAD/CAM systems aimed at using high-tech ceramics such as zirconia-TZP as framework materials for dental labora- tory technology3,20. Machining of the material in its pre-sintered body phase with subse- quent sintering has become increasingly popular, as well as CAD/CAM machining of zir- conia-TZP in the HIP state. The first clinical trials with zirconia for crown and bridgework in dentistry emerged in the clinics of Aachen, Göttingen, Zürich, Homburg and Malmö. Regarding the clinical experience with zirconia oxide as a framework material for dental restorations, studies are examining follow-up time periods of 5 years. For the studies look- ing at 5 years, the ceramic material, the manufacturing system and the veneering materi- 14 QJDT 6, 1, 8–18 (2008)
  8. 8. SCIENCE, MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY pyrig No Co ht t fo rP by N ub Q ui lica tio te n ot n ss e n c e fo r Table 4 Overview of clinical System Bridges Units Time Fracture rate (%) First named Year trials from bridge prosthodon- Anterior Posterior Three More (years) Frame Veneer author tics with frameworks made of zirconia ceramic. The work was DCM 22 21 1 1 0 0 Sturzenegger25 2000 produced with different sys- Lava 38 38 1.5 0 2.5 Pospiech26 2003 tems and material combina- Cercon 59 44 15 1 0 3.4 Bornemann27 2003 tions. Cercon 11 11 <1 0 0 Rinke28 2003 DCM 58 3.5 0 11 Sailer18 2003 DCS 3 17 2 18 2 0 3 von Steyern29 2005 Lava 20 20 2.6 n=5 Raigrodski30 2006 DCM 33 27 6 5 97.8 15.2 Sailer19 2007 InLab 170 32 4 5 Mörmann31 2007 DCS 15 50 43 22 5 6 Tinschert32 2007 al were, at the time, being used in a experimental phase. The evidence and conclusions that can be drawn from these reports are limited. However, all studies have reported that no fracture of a framework has appeared. The evidence of the so-called chipping of the veneering ceramics (cohesive fracture within the veneering) is widely discussed. Table 4 shows the current status of the clinical trials with regard to crown and bridge prosthodontics involving zirconia frameworks and an individually layered veneer ceram- ic. Some studies are not reporting any chipping, while some authors are expressing their concerns about the findings concerning this issue. The reasons for these chipping phe- nomena are still not fully explored21,22. One important area of distinct improvement was the software developments in the CAD/CAM systems for anatomical shaping of frame- works, which enabled the production of a veneering layer of uniform thickness. CAD/CAM Machining of In dental all-ceramic work, zirconia-TZP has recently been introduced for the fabrication Zirconia Ceramic in of framework structures for single-tooth restorations and bridge assemblies. This material Dental Laboratory offers advantages over alumina because of its higher strength. The frameworks are con- Technology ventionally veneered by hand with compatible ceramic materials by the layering/sinter- ing technique. The possibility of fixing the veneered restorations onto the prepared teeth or implant abutments with conventional cements is an advantage for clinical ease-of-use. In using CAD/CAM technology, the frameworks are machined out of blanks of the mater- ial, which can be in different states of sintering (Fig 16). In dental laboratory work, the processing is currently carried out in three different degrees of sintering3: 1. Machining the framework contour out of a densely sintered framework material (hard- ened and tempered by the HIP process) with diamond instruments (usually fully sin- tered) and water cooling. 2. In pre-sintered (also called semi-sintered or partially sintered) material with diamonds and water cooling. 3. As a pre-sintered body in a chalk-like (porous) state with tungsten carbide cutters with- out liquid cooling. Each of these approaches has system-specific advantages and disadvantages. Machining of completely sintered zirconia material requires special machines with high rigidity and QJDT 6, 1, 8–18 (2008) 15
  9. 9. SCIENCE, MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY pyrig No Co ht t fo rP by N ub Q ui lica tio te ot n n ss e n c e fo r Fig 16 Metoxit AG manufac- tures material blanks in differ- ent configurations to order and as specified by dental com- panies. longer grinding times, which means correspondingly high tool consumption. The use of semi-sintered zirconia material can shorten the grinding time and greatly reduce tool con- sumption. Furthermore, the machining equipment is exposed to far fewer stresses. Machining zirconia ceramic in a less than fully sintered state (groups 2 and 3 above) always requires enlarged shaping of the object, followed by sintering in special furnaces and sintering shrinkage inherent to the system. This method is the most commonly used today in dental laboratory technology. While products made from zirconia are growing in popularity in dentistry, Metoxit AG is Future High-tech already working on the development and introduction of more generations of oxide Ceramics ceramics for medicine. In this context, the material called Ziraldent® (alumina toughened zirconia) is a good example of how increased strength, compared to zirconia, has been achieved by the use of industrial manufacturing methods. The manufacturing processes requires a HIP treatment in addition to the sintering, and this material can no longer be commercially machined on dental laboratory CAD/CAM systems because of its high strength. It is therefore only suitable for industrial processing, e.g. for surgical instru- ments, implants and root posts. Quality assurance is a major concern in industry and especially in the medical technolo- Quality Assurance in gy sector. Metoxit AG was certified in accordance with ISO 9001:1994 in 1997 and ISO Production 9001:2000 in 2004. For the medical sector, the company is certified in accordance with ISO 13485:2003 and the European directive 93/42/EEC of Appendix II. The extremely high quality assurance standards, which must be met as a matter of course for products used in orthopaedics, have also proved to be a perfect precondition in relation to dental ceram- ics for ensuring excellent reliability and user safety of the products manufactured. Metoxit AG has a wealth of expertise in the field of oxide ceramics for medical use. From Discussion among this group of materials, zirconia-TZP (especially in the HIP form) has become increasingly attractive for restorative dentistry since the mid-1990s. Despite the relatively short clinical observation phase from the medical point of view, the results so far justify its use, while the long-standing use of zirconia in orthopaedics (successfully employed 16 QJDT 6, 1, 8–18 (2008)
  10. 10. SCIENCE, MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY pyrig No Co ht t fo rP by N ub Q ui lica tio te ot n n ss e n c e fo r since 1985) serves as an excellent reference. The Swiss company is interested in working with partners from the dental industry, not only to manufacture medical devices in the form of finished parts but also as a supplier of semi-finished parts. Since the company was formed in 1978, Metoxit AG has stuck to this principle of being a supplier without direct distribution to customers, namely dentists and dental technicians. In most cases the con- sumer has no idea where the material he has used originated from. Some suppliers of high-performance ceramic products name Metoxit AG as a quality source in order to dis- tinguish themselves from other suppliers and as a way of substantiating their competence and product quality. This is particularly important given the events in 2001 when a com- petitor had to withdraw from the production of ceramic products for medical use because of faulty products. The user and, not least, the patients must be able to rely on standard- ised quality in the manufacture of ceramic materials and products. The years of develop- ment work and the experience gained by Metoxit AG in the field of medical devices are documented in numerous publications23. Acknowledgements The author warmly thanks the Managing Director of Metoxit AG, Dr W Weber, and the Board member Dr W Rieger for their assistance in compiling this article. I would also like to thank Mr A Wohlwend for the ‘historical’ illustrations in Figs 6 to 10 from his picture archive. References 1. Chevalier J. What future for zirconia as a biomaterial? Biomaterials 2006;27:535-543. 2. Raigrodski AJ. Contemporary all-ceramic fixed partial dentures: a review. Dent Clin North Am 2004;48:531-544. 3. Witkowski S. (CAD-)/CAM in Dental Technology. Quintessence Dent Technol 2005;28:169-184. 4. Fett T, Hartlieb W, Keller K, Knecht B, Munz D, Rieger W. Subcritical crack growth in high-grade alu- mina. J Nucl Mater 1991;184:39-46. 5. Rieger W. Ceramics in orthopedics – 30 years of evolution and experience. In: Rieker C, Oberholzer S, Wyss U (eds). World Tribology Forum in Arthroplasty. Bern: Hans Huber, 2001. 6. Chevalier J, Gremillard L, Deville S. Low-temperature degradation of zirconia and implications for biomedical implants. Annu Rev Mater Res 2007;37:1-32. 7. Keith O, Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Zirconia brackets: an evaluation of morphology and coefficients of friction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106:605-614. 8. Meyenberg KH, Lüthy H, Schärer P. Zirconia posts: A new all-ceramic concept for non-vital abut- ment teeth. J Esthet Dent 1995;7:73-80. 9. Glauser R, Sailer I, Wohlwend A, Studer S, Schibli M, Schärer P. Experimental zirconia abutments for implant-supported single-tooth restorations in esthetically demanding regions: 4-years results of a prospective clinical study. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:285-290. 10. Wohlwend A, Studer S, Schärer P. Das Zirkonoxidabutment – ein neues vollkeramisches Konzept zur ästhetischen Verbesserung der Suprastruktur in der Implantologie. Quintessenz Zahntech 1996;22:364-381. 11. Wohlwend A. Decisive progress in dental technology by Professor Peter Schärer. Eur J Esthet Dent 2007;2:116-129. 12. Larsson C, van Steyern P, Sunzel B, Nilner K. All-ceramic two- to five-unit implant-supported recon- structions. A randomized, prospective clinical trail. Swed Dent J 2006;30:45-53. 13. Kohal RJ, Att W, Bächle M, Butz F. Ceramic abutments and ceramic dental implants. An update. Periodontol 2000 2008 (in press). 14. Graber G, Besimo C. Das DCS-Hochleistungskeramiksystem. Ein neuer Weg zur comput- ergestützten Herstellung von metallfreien Zirkonoxid-Kronen und -Brücken. Quintessenz Zahntech 1994;20:57-64. 15. Hintersehr J. Technology for the fabrication of dental prostheses. European Patent, EP 0630622B1. 23 June 1994. 16. Luthardt R, Rieger W, Musil R. Grinding of zirconia-TZP in dentistry - CAD/CAM-technology for the manufacuring of fixed dentures. In: Sedel L, Rey C (eds). Bioceramics 10. [Proceedings of the 10th QJDT 6, 1, 8–18 (2008) 17
  11. 11. SCIENCE, MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY pyrig No Co ht t fo rP by N ub Q ui lica tio te ot n n ss e n c e fo r international symposium on ceramics in medicine. 5–8 Oct 1997, Paris] Oxford: Elsevier Science, 1997:437-440. 17. Zhang Y, Lawn B, Rekow E, Thompson V. Effect of sandblasting on the long-term performance of dental ceramic. J Biomed Mater Res 2004;71:381-386. 18. Sailer I, Lüthy H, Feher M, Schumacher M, Schärer P, Hämmerle CHF. 3-Year clinical results of zir- conia posterior fixed partial dentures made by direct ceramic machining (DCM). J Dent Res 2003;82(special issue):Abstract 0074. 19. Sailer I, Feher A, Filser F, Lüthy H, Gaukler LJ, Lüthy H, Hämmerle CHF. Five-year clinical results of zirconia frameworks for posterior fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont 2007;20:383-388. 20. Strub JR, Rekow ED, Witkowski S. Computer-aided design and fabrication of dental restorations: Current systems and future possibilities. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137:1289-1296. 21. Zhang Y, Lawn B, Malament KA, Thompson V, Rekow E. Damage accumulation and fatigue life of particle-abraded ceramics. Int J Prosthodont 2006;19:442-448. 22. Rekow E, Thompson VP. Near-surface damage – a persistent problem in crowns obtained by com- puter-aided design and manufacturing. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 2005;219:233-243. 23. Weber W, Rieger W. ZrO2-TZP in dentistry: material, properties and applications. In: Key engineer- ing materials. [Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Ceramics in Medicine. 22–26 Nov 2000, Bologna]. Switzerland: Trans Tech Publications, 2001:929-932. 24. Rieger W. Medical applications of ceramics. In: Kostorz G (ed). High-Tech Ceramics. London: Academic Press, 1989:191-228. 25. Sturzenegger B, Feher A, Lüthy H, Schumacher M, Loeffel O, Filser F et al. Klinische Studie von Zirkonoxidbrücken im Seitenzahngebiet hergestellt mit dem DCM-System. Acta Med Dent Helv, 2000;5:131-139. 26. Pospiech PR, Rountree PR, Nothdurft FP. Clinical evaluation of zirconia-based all-ceramic posterior bridges: two-year results. J Dent Res 2003;82(special issue):Abstract 0817. 27. Bornemann G, Rinke S, Huels A. Prospective clinical trial with conventionally luted zirconia-based fixed partial dentures – 18-month results. J Dent Res 2003;82(special issue):Abstract 0842. 28. Rinke S, Jenatschke RA. Clinical performance of all-ceramic cantilever fixed partial dentures-base- line report. J Dent Res 2003;82(special issue):Abstract 0843. 29. von Steyern P, Carlson P, Nilner K. All-ceramic fixed partial dentures designed according to the DC- Zirkon technique. A 2-year clinical study. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:180-187. 30. Raigrodski A, Chiche GJ, Potiket N, Hochstedler JL, Mohamed SE, Billiot S, Mercante DE. The effica- cy of posterior three-unit zirconium-oxide-based ceramic fixed partial dental prostheses: a prospec- tive clinical pilot study. J Prothet Dent 2006;96:237-244. 31. Mörmann W. Zirkonoxidgerüste bei Kronen und Brücken: aktueller Stand. Deutsche Zahnärztl Z 2007;62:141-148. 32. Tinschert J, On HS, Natt G. DCS Precident-System. In: Tinschert J, Natt G (eds). Oxidkeramiken und CAD/CAM-Technologien. Köln: Deutscher Zahnärzte Verlag, 2007:197-223. Siegbert Witkowski, MDT, CDT Address for correspondence Head of Dental Technology, University Hospital Freiburg, School of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Chair: Prof. Dr. J. R. Strub Hugstetter Str. 55, 79106 Freiburg, Germany Email: Based on an article published in German in Quintessenz Zahntechnik 2006;32:66-76 18 QJDT 6, 1, 8–18 (2008)